I'm not an artist. I have a GCSE grade C or D, from 22 years ago back when that qualification still used letters. But despite that, I have enough of an eye for art to be surprised and disappointed by how many flaws other people are not only willing to accept, but actually prefer. Back in 2000-ish, that was my peers using non-tiling animated gifs as the background of their geocities pages; later it was seeing 72 dpi pixelation and jpeg compression artefacts on food packaging in a supermarket; or a lack of kerning in a clearly not-fixed-width font in a video game.
I've also seen an artist get frustrated because two managers completely disagreed about what an ideal UI should look like, and kept saying they were too busy to talk to each other even though both needed to sign off the design and didn't like what the other wanted the UI to look like.
And another who got a string of unpaid interns (they didn't tell me the interns were unpaid, but given how that contract ended it couldn't have been otherwise) to design a series of changes to the UI and then wondered why it was taking me so long to finish it. But that manager also kept telling me they wanted a button "wider" until I asked them to draw it and then they said "wider but vertically".
I'm starting to think one of the things artists are needed for is to convince everyone else to stop arguing and just do the thing. This fits with the meme of the last two decades of fancy art being "Here is an unmade bed representing my depression" — the convincing justification is more important than the work itself.
haha xkcd has one for everything
There's something called the Gullibility Gap and it is created because we anthropomorphize things as humans. More specifically, we see machines doing things that ONLY humans can do and thus our propensity to anthropomorphize them is even greater. We think that they must be intelligent and thinking because the only other things we've seen that do the tasks that they are doing also are intelligent and thinking. But what we've forgot is that the non-machines are also generalists. The machines can only do their specific tasks.
There's also issues with how machines "think." We know that they do not think like humans, and so this does create issues and ones I doubt we'll solve anytime soon. And like you pointed out with emotion, that's not going to be something that machines can understand. Who knows if AGI will even be able to. But then again, often we have a hard time understanding one another's feelings. But sympathy and empathy were powerful creations for us bio machines. So we'll see, but I do think it is quite easy to over attribute what these machines can do.
Imagine going back to 1960 and showing a programmer modern JavaScript. Surely this new "JavaScript" thing will completely replace programmers! I mean, what use is a programmer when someone can just describe their program in a language that looks almost like English (relative to this stack of punchcards I've been working with!). The user doesn't have to spend time fiddling with memory management. Complex algorithms like search and sort are abstracted away into simple functions. Why, implementing all that was 99% of a programmer's job! Sure, you still have to format the program in a particular way, but any random John should be capable of that with a little tweaking!
And you know, the old programmer would kind of be correct. It takes no less than two weeks to learn React and throw together a decent webapp now (not an enterprise-scale webapp, but a good proof of concept). Despite this 99% reduction to the barrier of entry, there's still a lot of paid work for web developers.